Malaysia Caning Indonesian National with 6 Strokes of Rotan for Drinking Alcohol

Read here for more

Odd-job worker Nazarudin Kamaruddin, 46, an Indonesian national with permanent resident status was sentenced to a year's jail and six strokes of rotan for consuming alcohol in public.

Nazarudin has lived in Malaysia for 33 years and has become the first person to be jailed for drinking alcohol in public.

The bachelor was charged with consuming samsu at Paramount Restaurant in Jalan Pasar at 10am on Aug 27.

Syariah court judge Datuk Abdul Rahman Md Yunos is the SAME judge who ordered earlier a Malaysian woman of Indonesian descent, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, to be given six strokes of the rotan and fined RM 5,000 after she pleaded guilty to consuming beer at a hotel in Cherating two years ago.

Both Nazarudin and Kartika were convicted in Pahang, the home state of PM Najib.

The Pahang Religious Department (Jaip) will expedite the caning of Kartika, a part-time model and mother of two children, after Hari Raya Aidilfitri should the Syariah Appeal Court uphold the decision of the Syariah High Court.

UPDATED: PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin: A Former PAS REJECT in 2004 Who Hoodwinked Anwar Ibrahim and PKR in 2008

Read here for more

PAS in 2004 did the RIGHT Thing to Reject Zulkifli Noordin as a candidate to contest in the 2004 General Election.

Parti KeAdilan Rakyat (PKR) did the WRONG Thing to nominate him as a candidate for the 2008 General Election, because it resulted in Pakatan Rakyat voters having to elect him into Parliament.

Correction by voters is needed to make sure he becomes a ONE-TERM MP.

A Former PAS REJECT

According to a Pro-PAS blogger, the PKR MP from Kulim-Bandar Baru, Zulkifli Noordin was a PAS member. He wanted to contest under PAS for the 2004 General Election but PAS REJECTED him.

In fact, just before the elections in 2004, he was put on the black list by respected ulama Haron Din. This prohibited him from speaking at Pas-sponsored ceramahs. Party leaders found him too explosive and divisive even for their liking. He wore out his welcome in PAS after his frequent clashes with several personalities.

Since he was not wanted in PAS in 2004 , he came begging to Parti KeAdilan to contest the Kuala Langat , Selangor Parliamentary seat in 2004. For some stupid reason, Parti KeAdilan agreed to let him contest under the Parti KeAdilan banner.

But voters in Kuala Langat in 2004 WISELY rejected Zulkilfli Noordin . And he lost to UMNO/BN's Shafie Salleh by 21,495 votes.

In 2008, he came a-calling again to Anwar Ibrahim and Parti KeAdilan Rakyat (PKR), to ask to stand this time in Kedah after he was rejected by Selangor voters.

Without proper background check on Zulkifli Noordin's past behaviour, they agreed . He won because there was a wave of support for Pakatan Rakyat coalition. Zulkifli Noordin simply benefited from the 2008 "Tsunami" against BN.

When Anwar Ibrahim agreed to let Zulkifli Noordin to contest the Kulim-Bandar Baru seat under the PKR in 2008 , was Anwar aware that Zulkifli Noordin was a rejected candidate by PAS for the 2004 General Election?

Question is how Anwar Ibrahim and PKR got suckered by Zulkifli Noordin by getting himself selected as a candidate under the PKR banner the second time?

Blogger Penarik Beca commented:

"... Adakah PKR tak tahu, ketika Zulkifli berada dalam PAS dahulu, beliau diTOLAK dari menjadi calon PAS dalam satu mesyuarat Majlis Syura PAS sebelum pilihan raya umum 2004?

Kalau PKR tahu dan depa ambik juga Zulkifli jadi calon, saya hanya nak kata: Padan muka hampa!!"

Zulkifli Noordin has been a destabilising factor in Pakatan Rakyat. He was a key player in the Bar Council Forum protest when he threatened to storm the Forum meeting. His frequent statements had been against the principles upon which Pakatan Rakyat stood for. His position seems to be pro-UMNO.

Read here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here

Blogger Penarik Beca posed these two questions

1. " Kenapa Umno dan Barisan Nasional (BN) tak tarik dia menyertai parti itu?" (Why didn't UMNO bring him across to join UMNO ?)
   
   Answer: "Bangang sangat la Umno kalau dia tarik Zul tu. Biar dia jadi rebel dalam Pakatan Rakyat (PR) jauh lebih menguntungkan Umno". (Stupid of UMNO to bring Zulkifli into UMNO. He is more useful to UMNO as a rebel in Pakatan Rakyat )
   
   
2. "Mengapa PKR tak ambil tindakan ke atas beliau berikutan beberapa karenahnya sebelum ini ? " ( Why didn't PKR take action against him for his behaviour?)
   
   Answer: "Bangang sangat la PKR kalau dia buat gitu. Apa ke bodohnya tak fasal-fasal nak jadikan dia hero!" (Stupid of PKR if it takes action against Zulkifli. It would make Zulkifli as a "hero" among his supporters)

PAS in 2004 was smart enough to see through Zulkifli Noordin as not a team player and an unreliable PAS representative. Therefore he was rejected by PAS to stand for the 2004 election.

PKR made a serious mistake to select Zulkifli Noordin as a candidate and now Pakatan Rakyat is paying a heavy price for his bad behaviour as a Pakatan Rakyat MP.

After being elected as MP under PKR, he had the gall to say "“I’d rather choose Islam over Parti Keadilan“. He should have joined JAWI instead if he wants to champion Islam per se.


The only way to get rid of a nuisance like Zulkilfli Noordin is to sack him from PKR . If that is not possible, Pakatan Rakyat voters have to make sure he is a ONE-TERM MP only.

That means PKR and PAS should NOT select him as a candidate in the next general election.

Pakatan Rakyat voters are more than welcome to let UMNO have him to represent their interest.

If Pakatan Rakyat /PKR ever decides to nominate him a candidate, WE, with other like-minded bloggers will launch a sustained media campaign to support the opposing candidate from any party.

Politicians of the like of Zulkifli Noordin, a former reject of PAS, should be made into a one-term MP for good.

Because Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein Didn't Like His Own Press Conference, He Demanded It Removed from Malaysiakini Website

WHAT AN IDIOT OF A HOME MINISTER

ARROGANCE OF A HIGHEST DEGREE

PM Najib's Beloved Cousin

The MCMC directed Malaysiakini to remove two video reports from its site and from YouTube on the cow-head protest by some 50-odd scumbag Muslims.

One of the videos is of Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein's press conference held on 2nd September where he defended the cow-head protestors.

The MCMC officers have visited Malaysiakni office twice and had demanded Malaysiakini hand over the original tapes of the two video clips.

This is the letter to Malaysiakini demanding that the video clip of Hishamuddin's press conference be removed from Malaysiakini website and from Youtube.




Hishamuddin came out blazing to show he is a champion of these scumbag muslims, and even justified their action in insulting the Hindu faith. He even suggested he was not in favour of legal action to be taken against any of the protestors.

At the press conference, he threatened OTHERS not to create trouble while defending the action of these 50-odd scumbag Muslims of insulting the Hindu faith and for their willingness to have a bloodbath if the temple is relocated in Section 23,

This is what he said at the press conference

"...They, the organisers, who are sitting left and right of me, didn’t even know that somebody was going to bring the head of the cow during that demonstration. All that they wanted to do was to voice their unhappiness about the willingness of the state government to listen to their requests.

I was told that even the Hindus there are not so passionate that it is built there (section 23).If I wanted to use the issue to create chaos in Selangor, I can but we didn’t take such actions.

I have it in my records to show there were cases where a pig-head was used by irresponsible parties including leaving the head in front of an Umno building covered by an Umno flag. Why would we want to penalise anybody?"

This is the video clip of Hishamuddin's press conference which he wanted Malaysiakini to pull out of the website because he was embarrassed by his own press conference:


By the next day (3rd Sept) , he must have woken up and realised his utter STUPIDITY of what he said at the press conference.

So he made a u-turn.

He called for stern action against those involved in the cow-head protest in Shah Alam last week. He even told the police to proceed with investigations and bring to court those who brought the severed cow-head to protest a Hindu temple relocation.

That's not all.

Here's the ultimate arrogance of Hishamuddin the Home Minister.

Instead of apologising for his shameful performance at the 2nd September press conference, he wanted to erase history and assumed nothing had happened or rather the press conference did not exist by asking Malaysiakini to remove the video clip of his press conference .

He did not ask the police this time to harass Malaysiakini, instead he got MCMC to do his hatchet job.

So MCMC has to come out with an excuse to abide Hishamuddin's demands, one of which is to remove the video pertaining to HIS press conference.

So the following reason was concocted by MCMC: The cow-head protest videos in Malaysiakini website:

" contain OFFENSIVE contents with intent to annoy any person especially Indians"

For God sake, it is HIS own press conference that was in the video. It was what HE SAID that is offensive.

Malaysiakini as a news portal had simply reported what he said. And he got his fellow UMNO Minister in the Ministry of Information to ask MCMC to blame Malaysiakini for "annoying" Malaysians with the video recording of his press conference.

The next day when he suddenly saw himself appearing stupid and embarrassed, he decided to erase HIS offensive remarks in people's memory. So, by the power vested in him by his cousin, PM Najib, he as Home Minister asked MCMC to write to Malaysiakini to remove the video clip on HIS press conference.... or else.

Who does he think he is? That is fine to do what he did without any furore in a Stalinist state like in North Korea.


One of a kind in the abuse of power

Hishamuddin as Home Minister is aping the Dear Leader, Kim Jung-il and treating Malaysia as a South East Asian version of North Korea.

He can undoubtedly able to bring to their knees those UMNO-controlled media ie New Straits Time, to Rocky's Bru's Malay Mail or Utusan Malaysia.

To an on-line news website??

As for the video clip on his press conference and the cow head protest, even if they are removed from Malaysiakini website, they will remain in Youtube for a long time as there already copies made and distributed in Youtube by those who would not want Hishamuddin to erase or rewrite history as he saw fit.

Watch this interview with Malaysia's Steven Gan on the harassment by MCMC on Pop-TV and what Steven Gan had to say of the MCMC officers coming to his office in Malaysiakini:




Recapping What Transpired on the Cow Head Protest and the Fallout

On 28 Aug 2009, in a Muslim holy month of Ramadan, a group of 50-odd scumbag Muslims after completing their Friday prayers at the State mosque, decided to parade a cow-head in Shah Alam as a protest against the relocation of a 150-year Hindu temple at Section 23.

During the protest and under the gaze of the police, these scumbag Muslims threatened bloodshed if the Hindu temple was relocated to their neighbourhood. The cow is considered sacred in the Hindu faith.

Thus, the parade of the cow head in protest of the relocation of the Hindu temple was calculated to incite hatred by Malaysian Hindus and Hindus in general and to insult the Hindu faith by denigrating the cow in public.

Dozens of riot police stood by and watched as protesters brought the severed cow-head to the Selangor state secretariat and stomped on it.

The police did absolutely nothing about it and in fact had the front seat as spectators allowing the whole drama to be played out.

Malaysiakini journalists were present, so they reported it and video-taped the protest. The video clip was uploaded onto Malaysiakini website and YouTube as supporting evidence of Malaysiakini's report of the scandalous incident.

Muslims and non Muslims throughout the country expressed disgust of the whole incident and questioned why the police did not act against these scumbag muslims.

Timidly the next day, (29 August) the Shah Alam OCPD ACP Noor Azam Jamaludin held a press conference and gave the excuse that police had failed to act during the cow-head demonstration because the situation “did not permit” them to do so. He said it was only a small group protesting and he added:

"We saw the situation was not right because we did not want to spark more anger .”

We ask, since when is the police afraid of a crowd of 50 protesters on the street?

It was one of the most unconvincing and cowardly responses ever to be mouthed by a senior police officer.

Hishamuddin then met those protesters and held a press conference on the 2 September, defending and justifying the action of these scumbag Muslims in insulting the Hindu faith, even in their willingness to have a bloodbath, threatening the security of the country.

The next day, Hishamuddin retracted from his press conference and called for stern action against these scumbag Muslims.

The Selangor Govt through the Shah Alam Town Council then called a town meeting with these scumbag muslims and residents of Section 23.

The following video speaks for itself for the "samseng" behaviour of these scumbag muslims :



Caught in a corner, the UMNO-led Government then decided that it had no choice but to charge 12 of the scumbag muslims for sedition.

We will wait whether the law will be made into a fool when the case comes up in court.

Meanwhile the Malay NGO, PERKASA, under the leadership of Independent MP from Kelantan, Ibrahim Ali (read here) is launching a JIHAD to defend these low-life scumbag muslims who not only:

• insulted the Hindu faith and threatened a bloodbath,
  
  
• but who disgraced Islam,
  
  
• gave Muslims in general, Malays in particular a bad name,
  
  
• making a mockery of the holy month of Ramadan and
  
  
• insulting their fellow Malay-Muslims who attended the Friday prayers in the State Mosque on 28 August 2009.

Only God/Allah can save Malaysia from the dangerous politics of Hishamuddin Hussein, our Home Minister, PM Najib's cousin, son of Tun Hussein Onn and grandson of Datuk Onn Jaafar, because this UMNO-Govt cannot and Malaysians unwilling.

Kalau Orang Amerika Guna Alasan Penduduk Seksyen 23: Macam mana?

Read here for more in "Malaysia Waves" blog

Excerpts:

by

"Tulang Besi"

Nak bagitau, masjid di Amerika ni banyak.

Tapi boleh dikatakan tiada kawasan di Amerika ini majoritinya Islam.

Ertinya, orang-orang BUKAN Islam di Amerika bertoleransi dan bersikap terbuka membenarkan orang-orang Islam yang minoriti membuka Masjid dan Musolla.

Bayangkan kalau alasan yang digunakan oleh Penduduk Seksyen 23, “yakni Seksyen 23 ini majoriti Islam maka tak boleh dibuat kuil di sini”, digunakan oleh orang2 di Amerika. Nescaya, tiada masjid yang boleh dibina di mana-mana tempat di Amerika (kecuali di Guantanamo Bay).

1. Ertinya, apa yang dilakukan oleh penduduk Seksyen 23 serta beruk-beruk UMNO yang telah berdemonstrasi kepala lembu dan bersikap macam beruk kena belachan sewaktu dialog, seperti memberi lesen kepada penduduk2 bukan Islam di Amerika untuk MENUTUP kesemua masjid di sana serta menghalang pembinaan mana-mana masjid baru di sana.
   
   
2. Ertinya tindakan penduduk Seksyen 23 bersama beruk2 UMNO mereka meletakkan kedudukan masjid2 di Amerika dalam risiko yang besar memandangkan isu pembinaan kuil ini sangat luas dibincangkan dalam internet.
   
   
3. Dan, Amerika merupakan negara yang luas jangakaun internet mereka.

Inilah dia bila nak berjuang Islam takda ilmu. Buat ikut semberono tak fikir panjang.

Pergi ikut cakap orang-orang UMNO Seksyen 23 yang separuh tiang.

Terima sahaja hasutan puak-puak UMNO ini tanpa soal.

• Tidakkah penduduk Seksyen 23 ini hairan mengapa beruk2 UMNO ini kuat membising dalam isu kuil ini tapi senyap sunyi bila Presiden mereka meluluskan 10 lesen judi yang baru?
  
  
• Mengapa beruk-beruk UMNO ini tidak bising apabila Menteri Kewangan tidak mengambil tindakan terhadap 3 orang Melayu/Islam yang duduk dalam Lembaga Pengarah Calrsberg dan 2 Melayu/Islam yang duduk dalam Lembaga Pengarah Guiness Anchor?
  
  
• Mengapa beruk2 UMNO ni tak bising bila pemimpin2 mereka secara terbuka menolak hukum hudud dan hokum qisas?
  
  
• Mengapa beruk2 ni tak bising bila Muhyiddin jual tanah kita ke Singapore?
  
  
• Mengapa beruk2 ni tak bising bila maksiat dibenarkan berleluasa oleh kerajaan Barisan NAsional?

Ertinya penduduk2 Seksyen 23 telah termakan dengan cerita BOHONG beruk2 UMNO ini.

1. Kedudukan kuil ituJAUH dari surau dan jauh dari kawasan perumahan.
   
   
2. Kedudukan kuil itu TIDAK mengacau kententeram surau.

Malahan beruk-beruk UMNO yang membuat bising itu, bukannya mereka ini selalu bersolat di surau tu pun.

Malahan, muka diorang pun tak pernah nampak kat surau.

Isu kuil ini adalah batu loncatan beruk-beruk UMNO Seksyen 23 ini untuk mendapat publisiti murahan. Ia juga percubaan untuk membuktikan kononya kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat ini tunduk kepada kaum Hindu dan Bukan Islam.

Sedangkan YADIM membuat laporan yang terdapat terlampau banyak kuil di Malaysia dan semua kuil2 itu dibina diwaktu kerajaan Barisan Nasional memerintah.

Beruk2 UMNO Seksyen 23 mahu menjadikan usaha mereka ini usaha membenci kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat. Padahal ianya bukan isu, dan kalau penduduk rasa ia terlampau dekat, maka boleh ianya dipindah ke lokasi lain.

Beruk2 UMNO Seksyen 23 ini sedang cuba mencipta suasana tidak aman supaya nanti MAGERAN dapat diisytiharkan. Itu sahaja.

Di bawah saya masukkan satu dialog yang ditulis oleh salah seorang pembaca saya bernama "antilembumno":

Anonymous said...

lembUMNO 1: Kerajaan PR tak bincang dgn penduduk dulu sebelum buat keputusan nak pindah.

Jawapan: YB Khalid dah jawab. Perbincangan dgn penduduk hanya dibuat setelah cadangan rasmi dari PKNS dibuat, yakni setelah proses perbincangan dgn jabatan2 kerajaan dan jawatankuasa kuil selesai. Tak kan nak bincang dgn penduduk sebelum kerajaan sendiri endorse secara rasmi.

lembUMNO 2: Kenapa tak pindah kat sek 18 yang ramai org India?

Jawapan: Sek 18 dah ada kuil. Tak kan nak buat dua kuil kat situ.

lembUMNO 3: Kenapa tak pindah kat Sek 22?

Jawapan: Tapak cadangan Sek 22 tu kat tengah2 kaw kilang. Langsung tak sesuai. AJK kuil pun tak setuju. Hanya lembu sahaja yang boleh setuju buat kuil kat tengah2 kaw kilang.

lembUMNO 4: Kenapa tak kekal sahaja kat Sek 19?

Jawapan: Kalau tempat kat Sek 19 tu sesuai, tak de orang sibuk suruh pindahkan. Kuil kat kaw perumahan mana sesuai. Bila time orang ramai nak pakai kuil, tempat parking pun payah. Marah orang yg duduk kat situ.

lembUMNO 5: Kenapa tak roboh aje kuil tu?

Jawapan: Islam ajar kita hormati hak penganut agama lain. Merobohkan rumah ibadat orang lain bercanggah dgn ajaran Islam. Sapa nak jawab kat akhirat nanti?

lembUMNO 6: Tapi bukan ke kuil dah terlalu banyak kat S'ngor ni, byk yg tak daftar pulak tu.

Jawapan: Soalan tu kena tanya MB lepas. Kenapa tak urus dgn baik. Setahun lebih PR merintah s'gor, belum ade pembinaan kuil baru.Tapi bila kuil dah ada, mana boleh robh camtu aje.
Oleh "anti-lembUMNO."

- Tulang Besi


RELATED ARTICLE

JIHAD for the Cow-Head SCUMBAG Muslims by Malay NGO PERKASA

Read here article by Syed Azhar, "Malay NGO to defend Section 23 ‘jihad’ "

MALAY NGO PERKASA 's president Ibrahim Ali said several lawyer members of the movement were willing to take up the case as a "JIHAD” or any WAR undertaken in the name of Islam AGAINST unbelievers or backsliders.

Perkasa wants to provide legal counsel to the 12 “cow head protestors” who were charged with sedition and illegal assembly at the Shah Alam Sessions and Magistrates courts on Wednesday.

Ibrahim Ali , who is also the independent Member of Parliament for Pasir Mas, criticised those in power, accusing them of being cowards for not protecting the religion

Many Muslim and political leaders have condemned the cow head protest insulting the Hindu faith saying such hatred and disrespect had no place in Islam.

On Aug 28, some 50 people, led by residents of Section 23 in Shah Alam, marched about 300m from the state mosque to the gates of the Selangor state secretariat building to protest against the relocation of the Sri Mahamariamman temple from Section 19 to Section 21.

They dragged along a decapitated cow’s head then proceeded to stamp and spit on it.

They also warned of further action if the temple was built in their area, with one protest leader promising bloodshed

Deputy UMNO Youth Chief Mukhriz Mahathir's Brother Involved in Selling Beer Big Time

UPDATE:

PM Najib Abdul Razak said Umno is truly an ISLAMIC party. UMNO is the dominant party in this BN-led Govt in which Mukhriz Mahathir is a Deputy Minister of International Trade and Industry and whose eldest brother, Mirzan Mahathir is involved in ALCOHOL -production and marketing industry and whose father (Mahathir Mohamad) once said Malaysia is already an Islamic state. Read here for more

-- End of UPDATE --

Mirzan Mahathir, the eldest son of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was recently appointed to the Board of San Miguel Corp, the owner of the BEER making San Miguel Brewery Inc.

San Miguel Brewery controls 95 per cent of the Philippine BEER market.

The BEER is brewed in the Philippines, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, and is sold in 60 markets worldwide, according to the company’s Web site.

We Say to PAS's Hassan Ali and the JAWI Goon Squad:

• A Muslim Woman (Kartika Sari Devi Shukarno, read here) Drinking Alcohol is Caned, But a Muslim Man Engaged in Selling Alcohol Goes Scot-Free.
  
  
• And It is OK for Muslims to Sell Alcohol to Others!
  
  
• That's Equivalent to Punishing a Drug Addict Victim But Letting a Drug TRAFFICKER Go FREE to Keep on Selling Drugs.
  
  
• See If You Have the Balls and the Courage of a True Muslim to Confront the Brother of the Deputy UMNO Youth Chief / UMNO Minister and the Son of the former President of UMNO.
  
  
• This is a good time to show that you, Hassan Ali of PAS and the JAWI GOON SQUAD are not a bunch of Hypocrites.
  

Where's the Barking of UMNO's Canine, Big Dog on This !!
(See here Big Dog's leash onto Mahathir's family )



Mirzan Mahathir Appointed Director on San Miguel Corp Board

Read here for more in Malaysian Insider

San Miguel Corp told the Philippines stock exchange last week about Mirzan Mahathir’s appointment which is to represent the interests of Q-Tech Alliance Holdings Inc on the board.

Q-Tech, a Manila-based investment company in which Mirzan has a stake in, recently acquired a 19.9 per cent share in San Miguel Corp for 39.61 billion pesos (RM2.9 BILLION).

It bought the stake from Japan’s Kirin Holdings, which used the funds to help finance the acquisition of a 43 per cent stake in San Miguel Brewery Inc.

Mirzan’s involvement in the deal has raised some eyebrows among Malaysia’s conservative Muslim community.

Since news of Q-Tech’s acquisition of San Miguel Corp shares began circulating here, a number of news blogs have used it to attack Dr Mahathir’s Muslim credentials.

Mirzan Mahathir’s corporate forays have not been without controversy. He once controlled Konsortium Perkapalan Bhd when Dr Mahathir was prime minister, but was forced to sell its shipping assets to Malaysia International Shipping Corporation (MISC), in what critics said then was a bailout.

Court in Session: With Our Low-Calibre Judges Wearing UMNO/BN Badges, It CAN be True, as Shown in Past Rulings

To understand why such scenario (court proceeding below ) is plausible, read HERE (High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed's self-contradictory and half-baked ruling) , and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

(Note: Only Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim so far showed his true worth and mettle as a judge and some one devoid of political influence, giving his judgment with clear and sound legal basis. Read here for more )

These judges are NOT what we would like to call "MALAYSIAN Judges". They are more appropriately known and regarded as "UMNO-BN Judges".

Their appointments are NOT based on competence, knowledge and experience in the law, but on their loyalty and ability to safe-guard the interest of UMNO-BN at all times.

Their rulings since the sacking of the former Lord President Salleh Abas in 1988 up till now are testimony to that fact.

The preferred political end-game for UMNO/BN is to play in the Court of Appeal and in the Federal Court because that is where (click here) UMNO's trump card is held.

• Read HERE what happened to Tun Salleh Abbas and the judges who were sacked by the UMNO-led Govt

• Read HERE How the present Chief Justice Zaki Azmi as a loyal UMNO member sky-rocketed into his present position and HERE and HERE
  

The Man Judges Fear
to Step Out of Line
in the Malaysian Judiciary Today
QUOTE: "... Prior to Tun Zaki Azmi being appointed as Chief Justice of Malaya on 21st October, 2008, he was an UMNO member and served as a Legal Advisor to UMNO. His previous position in UMNO was as the Chairman of UMNO's Disciplinary Committee. His ties to UMNO is too DEEP for him to ensure the independence of the judiciary especially in cases involving the interest of UMNO or UMNO cronies..."Read here
(In the Malaysian Judiciary website Tun Zaki Azmi 's Profile Description is a HALF-TRUTH. In describing himself, he OMITTED his deep and long association and involvement in UMNO. Read here)

UPDATE: 1.30 pm 10 Sept 2009

The High Court here today struck out Elegant Advisory Sdn Bhd’s RM218-million suit against Umno over alleged non-payment for items the company claimed to have supplied during a general election.

The court said the application was without basis and did not follow the Contracts Act 1950.

In its writ of summons, Elegant Advisory said it was engaged in the supply of election merchandise, transportation and publications and that it had supplied Umno with these items for the 11th general election in 2004.

The company claimed that it had sent Umno invoices for a sum of RM218,013,475 and that the party had failed to pay up. Read here for more

--- END OF UPDATE ----

Disclaimer: The following article is a work of fiction and any resemblance to people still living, already dead, or about to die is purely coincidental. -Raja Petra Kamarudin

Bangun! The court’s in session

Read here for more article in Malaysia-Today

Transcript from the court's Proceedings

Bangun!

All rise. The judge walks in and takes his seat.

Duduk!

All sit down again.

Case number 1651/09, the Shah Alam High Court, Public Prosecutor versus Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf. Will all the accused please come forward and enter the dock.

The six enter the dock.

Judge: Okay. What is the charge? Please read out the charges to all the accused.

Prosecuting Counsel: Yes, your honour. You, Mohd Azmir Mohd Zin, Ahmad Suhairi Zakaria, Mohd Hilmi Ni, Eyzra Ezhar Ramlz, Ibrahim Sabri and Ahmad Mahayuddhn Abd Manaf, are accused of dragging a cow’s head after Friday prayers on…….

Judge: Hold on. What are they being charged for?

Prosecuting Counsel: Sedition, your honour.

Judge: Sedition? How come I don’t get to hear sodomy cases? I want to hear a sodomy case. Is there any sodomy involved here?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Only sedition.

Judge: How did they commit sedition?

Prosecuting Counsel: They dragged a cow’s head to the Selangor State Secretariat building.

Judge: How can they commit sedition against a cow? Dragging a cow is not seditious.

Prosecuting Counsel: It was not a cow, your honour. It was a cow’s head.

Judge: Of course you have to drag a cow by the head. I know that. You can’t drag a cow by the tail.

Prosecuting Counsel: It was not a live cow, your honour. It was a dead cow.

Judge: These six accused dragged a dead cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Not a dead cow, your honour. Just a cow’s head. They cut off the head and just dragged the head.

Judge: They needed six people just to drag one cow’s head?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Only two dragged the cow’s head. In fact, they carried it by the horns. Not actually dragged it along the ground.

Judge: Then how come six are being charged if only two dragged the cow’s head? Did they take turns to drag the cow’s head?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. Two dragged the cow’s head. The other four stepped on the cow’s head and spit on it.

Judge: So this is sedition against the cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Not sedition against the cow, your honour. They committed sedition because their act was an insult to Hindus.

Judge: Was the cow owned by a Hindu man?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. We have not yet established who owned the cow.

Judge: Did the owner of the cow make a police report?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour. But many Hindus did make police reports.

Judge: But none of these Hindus owned the cow?

Prosecuting Counsel: Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour.

Judge: Then why are they so upset?

Prosecuting Counsel: Because they feel insulted.

Judge: Aiyah! This case is getting very complicated even before the trial can start. Can’t we just charge them for sodomy instead? I want to hear a sodomy case. Judges become famous when they hear sodomy cases, not cases involving cow’s heads.

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. There is no sodomy involved here.

Judge: I’m sure if the police investigate properly they will find someone who has been sodomised.

Prosecuting Counsel: Well, your honour, I think Umno has been sodomised.

Judge: There you are. So there is sodomy involved. Can we amend the charges to sodomy against Umno instead?

Prosecuting Counsel: But your honour, Umno was not literally sodomised. It’s more like figure of speech sodomised. Umno was sodomised politically.

Judge: Anwar Ibrahim did not literally sodomise anyone either. He sort of politically sodomised Dr Mahathir Mohamad. But that did not stop the government from charging him and finding him guilty of sodomy. Why can’t these six be charged for sodomy, for politically sodomising Umno? I want to hear a sodomy case.

Prosecuting Counsel: For this particular case we can’t, your honour. But maybe we can give you another sodomy case to hear. Tiong King Sing just sodomised Ong Tee Keat by revealing the details of the RM10 million cash donation. It is now public knowledge and there is even a Statutory Declaration floating around.

Judge:Fantastic. Make sure that that case comes to my court. Where did the crime occur?

Prosecuting Counsel: In Petaling Jaya, your honour.

Judge: Ah, then that comes under my court’s jurisdiction. Okay, let us proceed with this sedition case then. Are there any witnesses involved? How many witnesses are going to be called and how many days will we need for this case?

Prosecuting Counsel: Initially, there were some videos of the crime.

Judge: Are the videos going to be entered as evidence? Then the accused might as well just plead guilty and save the court’s time. If there are videos then they have no defence.

Prosecuting Counsel: The videos were available, your honour. But now the MCMC has asked Malaysiakini to remove the videos under threat. So the videos are no longer available.

Judge: So the evidence no longer exists?

Prosecuting Counsel: No, your honour.

Judge: If there is no longer any evidence why waste the court’s time with a trial? Just drop the charges.

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. We have to make the Hindus happy by at least pretending that we are putting the six on trial and then later either drop the charges or find them not guilty due to lack of video evidence.

Judge: Why later? Why not now?

Prosecuting Counsel: We can’t, your honour. There is a by-election coming up soon in Port Dickson and there are about 20% Hindu voters there. This will make the Hindu voters very unhappy. We can only drop the charges after Umno wins the by-election. If not Umno is going to be sodomised good and proper.

Judge: Ah, if Umno loses the by-election can’t we then change the charge to sodomy since Umno was sodomised in the by-election?

Prosecuting Counsel: Umno can’t lose the by-election, your honour.

Judge: Why not?

Prosecuting Counsel: Because there are more than 5,000 postal voters in a total of only 14,000 registered voters.

Judge: I see. So the opposition is going to be sodomised instead then.

Prosecuting Counsel: Sort of, your honour.

Judge: And these six people being charged are also opposition members?

Prosecuting Counsel: They are, your honour.

Judge: I always said Anwar Ibrahim’s people are troublemakers. All opposition people are troublemakers. I have already decided to find them guilty even before the trial starts.

Prosecuting Counsel: These six are not Anwar Ibrahim’s people, your honour.

Judge: You said they are opposition supporters.

Prosecuting Counsel: They are Umno supporters, your honour.

Judge: But you said they are opposition supporters.

Prosecuting Counsel: Yes, your honour. Umno is the opposition in Selangor.

UPDATED! Judge Azahar Mohamed Ruled AGAINST Pakatan Rakyat Perak Speaker Sivakumar's Suit in High Court. So What's New ?

UMNO's Trump Card
Against the Opposition Parties


The BOSS of High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed

Profile of the Head of the Malaysian Judiciary:

Chief Justice Tun Zaki Azmi:
(In the Malaysian Judiciary website Tun Zaki Azmi 's Profile Description is a HALF-TRUTH. In describing himself, he OMITTED his deep and long involvement in UMNO. Read here)

Prior to Tun Zaki Azmi being appointed as Chief Justice of Malaya on 21st October, 2008, he was an UMNO member and served as a Legal Advisor to UMNO. His previous position in UMNO was as the Chairman of UMNO's Disciplinary Committee.

His ties to UMNO is too DEEP for him to ensure the independence of the judiciary especially in cases involving the interest of UMNO or UMNO cronies.

He has only served the judiciary for LESS than 5 years in total before becoming the Chief Justice, an unprecedented leap-frogging to the top post in the Judiciary with help of the UMNO-led Government.

Asia Sentinel reported on 7 December, 2007 "..As UMNO’s legal man, Tan Sri ( now Tun) Zaki Azmi was involved with the UMNO's myriad scandalous financial misadventures that were bailed out by the government in the heydays of former Prime Minister Mahathir’s crony-capitalism during the last Asian financial crisis." (Read here for more on background of Tun Zaki Azmi, Chief Justice of Malaya)

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

The Ipoh High Court today struck out with costs the suit by Perak Pakatan Rakyat legislative assembly speaker V Sivakumar against BN speaker R Ganesan, seeking damages for assault and battery and wrongful detention, as well as aggravated damages.

(Note: Judge Azahar Mohamed was appointed Judicial Commissioner on 1 August 2004. and as High Court Judge on 21 December 2004.)


Selective Application of the Law in the Perak Constitutional Crisis by the Court
(Read here article by Kim Quek on the Judge Azhar 's ruling)

Judge Azahar Mohamed said the court could NOT interfere with what had been decided by the Perak assemblymen at their sitting on May 7 in accordance with Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, "which states that the validity of any proceeding in any state legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court".

He said any matter arising with regard to the dismissal or appointment of the speaker at the assembly sitting should be examined, discussed and resolved in the assembly and not in court.

Azahar said in his judgment which he read out in court:

"The Perak Legislative Assembly has an exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

To me as far as this court is concerned, the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009.

"To question the validity of the removal and appointment is to question the validity of the constitution. This cannot be done in virtue of Article 72," Azahar said in his judgment which he read out in court."

The judge Azahar said he therefore had no other choice but to dismiss the plaintiff's application with costs.

Sivakumar in his writ of summons filed through Messrs Chan & Associates at the High Court registrar's office here on May 15, had also applied for an injunction to prevent the defendant or his workers or agents from denying him entry into the assembly, or to prevent or restrict him in whatever manner from holding the post or from carrying put his duties as the legitimate assembly speaker.

Sivakumar had also applied for an injunction to prevent any further abuse, attack or assault by the defendant or his workers or agents.

In is statement of claims, Sivakumar stated that he was still the Tronoh assemblyman and Perak legislative assembly speaker.

He claimed that the defendant was not elected as an assemblyman and hence his presence at any assembly sitting was an insult to the House.

Dragged and Ejected from the House

Sivakumar also claimed that about 2pm on May 7, while he was chairing the assembly sitting at the Perak Darul Ridzuan building as the legitimate speaker, the defendant's workers or agents had forcefully held, then dragged and ejected him from the assembly hall on the defendant's order.




(Image courtesy of Malaysiakini)
Speaker Sivakumar forcefully dragged out of his chair in the Perak State
Assembly by the police in plain clothes

He claimed that in his forced absence, the defendant had illegally assumed the post of speaker, sat on the speaker's chair and wore the speaker's robe.

Sivakumar was represented by lawyers Chan Kok Keong and Leong Cheok Keng, and Ganesan by Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin who was assisted by Hafarizam Harun, Abu Bakar As Sidek, Cheng Mai, Badrulhishah Abdul Wahab, Faizul Hilmy Ahmad Zamri and Syed Faisal Syed Abdullah.


RELATED ARTICLE

Judge Azahar Mohamed Slapped His Own Face

Read here for more in Malaysiakini

THE DOUBLE STANDARDS IN AZAHAR'S JUDGEMENT

A tragic yet hilarious court proceeding took place in the Ipoh High Court on Sept 8 when the judge blatantly contradicted himself in dismissing a suit brought by Perak's Pakatan Rakyat speaker against the state's Barisan Nasional speaker (yes, two speakers in the Perak assembly).

Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar's suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7.

He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that "the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly CANNOT be questioned in any court".

And yet in the same breath he declared that "the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009."

Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: Who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker's chair on May 7?

JUDGE AZAHAR'S INCOMPETENCE OR UNDER INSTRUCTION FROM HIS BOSS

By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a LEGAL judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72?

How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar's grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker?

Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?

Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the INABILITY to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.

What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him.

And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.

Judge Azahar has therefore WRONGLY used Article 72 to come to his judgment.To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.

• Clause 1: The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

• Clause 2: No body shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

Note the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 and "anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, NOT any criminal or unlawful act.

Tragedy and comedy

But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.

And how was Sivakumar "replaced" by Ganesan during that pandemonium?

While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker's chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan's order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over.

And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speakers chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker's chair.

The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a resolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker's chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.

And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another?

Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?

After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar's decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.


A Clever, Conveniently Contradictory and Convoluted Judgment

by

Martin Jalleh

Read here for more

Excerpts

The Perak constitutional crisis has revealed a judiciary, the chief guardian of the Constitution, willing to compromise justice by ignoring the Federal Constitution and interfering in the proceedings of a state assembly.

It continues to deliver, in cases related to the Perak constitutional crisis, what former and retired Court of Appeal judge N H Chan describes as “bad” and “perverse” judgments.

Even when the judiciary chooses to interpret the Federal Constitution correctly, it does so when it is politically expedient and best suits the BN (also read as Umno).

There is no better example of this “selective application” than the recent Ipoh High Court ruling that it had NO jurisdiction to hear the proceedings of the Perak legislative assembly.

Can't Get a More Incompetent and
Dumb High Court Judge Than This One !

Azahar Mohamed
High Court Judge

Ipoh High Court Judge Azahar Mohamed ruled that the court could NOT interfere with what had been decided by the Perak assemblymen at their sitting on May 7 in accordance with Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution. He said any matter arising with regard to the dismissal or appointment of the speaker at the assembly sitting should be examined, discussed and resolved in the assembly and NOT in court.

Alas, if only his colleagues in the Ipoh High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court who made decisions contrary to this, were as equally enlightened.

Just after declaring that the court “has no jurisdiction on the validity of the assembly proceedings and only the legislative assembly can decide on the legality of the two speakers", Justice Azahar added that “the decision of the legislative assembly on May 7, 2009 to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009”!

The judge conveniently contradicted himself.

What was on the surface a bold ruling (a brave departure from the erroneous decisions of his colleagues) was in reality convoluted bias – a conclusion most unfair to Speaker Sivakumar.

Azahar was making a LEGAL JUDGMENT . He was interfering in the legislative proceedings by inferring that Ganesan was the rightful speaker. The judge was guilty of breaching Article 72!

Confusing Contradiction

The judge’s portrayed bold front followed by his blatant and befuddling contradiction left Speaker Sivakumar bewildered:

"I had filed the two court cases against Zambry and his six executive councillors, and another against the three frogs (independent assemblypersons who left Pakatan to support BN which saw the collapse of the Pakatan state government in February this year).

“On both occasions, I had cited Article 72 of the Federal constitution to argue my case to which their defence lawyers had objected, and the courts ruled in their favour. Now the same article is used against me and the court has recognised the immunity of assembly proceedings from court jurisdiction. I'm very confused by the court's decision” (Malaysiakini).

Well-known and respected Malaysiakini columnist Kim Quek offers an interesting perspective to the judicial circus of the Ipoh High Court. He says that

“(a)part from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.”

“What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.”

Kim Quek rightly concludes that from the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 (of the Article) and

"..anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2, it is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.

“But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed.

In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah…Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment.”

It is very evident that Justice Azahar had made use of Article 72 to strike out Sivakumar’s suit and as justification to declare Ganeson the rightful MB.

If the judge was truly convinced and committed to the adherence of Article 72 he would NOT have legitimized the position of Ganesan – for the manner by which the latter was installed Speaker was a clear violation of the doctrine of separation of power.

A horde of policemen had trespassed into the State Assembly. They had forcibly dragged out Speaker Sivakumar, an officer of the legislature, and detained him against his will. They replaced him with Ganeson who was smuggled into the Perak State Assembly by the illegitimate MB Zambry and facilitated by the police.

As an Umno leader would later comment in great disgust: “It was high-handedness at its foulest”.

Judges like Azahar Mohamed have allowed their courts (supposed portals of justice) to be turned into a playground of political expediency and the perversion of the rule of law.

The judicial circus continues and Chief Justice Zaki Tun Azmi appears to be cheering them on!

UPDATED: The Culture War Between Malaysia and Indonesia: Different Perception of "Malay-ness" and Its Impact on Culture

(Photo courtesy of The Sun)
Jakarta - Indonesia, 08 September 2009 : Indonesian volunteers hold an anti Malaysian banner as they look for Malaysians in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 08 September 2009. Indonesian activists created a registration booth to find volunteers to attack Malaysia. The action came after the latest Malaysian claim over Indonesia cultural heritage. Last August Malaysian tourism TV ads sparked anger among Indonesian as the ads includes a traditional Balinese dance of Pendet at part of Malaysian culture. In 2007 a similar row broke as Malaysia use a song written by an Ambonese in an advertisement to promote Malaysia's tourism. Dispute between the two nations dated back from 1964 when Indonesia's first president Soekarno severed diplomatic tie with the former british colony over Soekarno's accussation that Malaysia was acting as a puppet for its former occupant.

The Indonesia-based blogger, "Unspun" posted an article from the Jakarta Post entitled, " Of different Malays: The problem of boundaries" following a spat of angry protests by Indonesians that Malaysians and Malaysia authorities are "stealing Indonesian cultural assets" .

The Indonesia-based blogger "Unspun" has followed this issue in several postings: Read here and here and here and here and here

• READ here transcript of the RADIO AUSTRALIA broadcast "Indonesia and Malaysia clash over cultural ownership" or

• LISTEN HERE to the AUSTRALIAN BROADCAST

Quote

"...Malay culture is considered by Indonesians in reference to the dances of Lilin, Randai and Serampang Dua Belas, and has no direct connection to the Javanese gamelan, the Reog or the angklung.

Most Malaysians, including the government of Malaysia, however, fail to see these as being of DIFFERENT cultural lineage. They lump them as belonging to Malay (Melayu) culture.

From elementary school, Indonesian kids learn about national heritage by memorizing the names of dances, folk songs and visual representations of traditional costumes.

Malaysians seem to see a DIFFERENT boundary for Malay culture.

The ways in which local culture is framed in Indonesia are much LESS crude than in Malaysia.

(In Indonesia) the practice of documenting and selecting material artifacts of local cultures is part of the larger political process of inclusion that stresses nationalism and the national unity of Indonesia.

Malaysia adopts a DIFFERENT route in approaching its national and local cultures. The modern nation-state of Malaysia frames national culture by clustering cultural artifacts into the Malay, Chinese, Indian and indigenous tribe (orang asli) cultures. The term Malay here (as used in Malaysia) differs from that of Indonesia, and refers to and is influenced by several concepts.

(In Malaysia), first, as enacted in the term "Malay is Muslim, Muslim is Malay", it is a form of ethno-religion. It is entwined with the concept of ethnic nationalism that has become today's Malaysia's dominant state-religion relations in which the state is fused to a particular ethnic group and religion functions as a signifier of ethnic identity.

Second, it is used in association with the Malay race (bangsa Melayu) instead of the Malay ethnicity (suku Melayu).

The modern nation-state Malaysia cultivates this heavily politicized classification by clustering Malaysians into Malays, Chinese, Indians and indigenous tribes.

Malaysian version of MALAY is more a product of political reconstruction (of colonialism and a modern ethnic nationalism) and is rooted in the politics of race and identity rather than the geographical boundary of origin.

Lumping together various artifacts into one Malay culture whose boundary is heavily politicized is certainly NOT the most plausible method to complete the task. It fails to recognize the complexity of the cultures of the archipelago...."
-Dr. Merlyna Lim

Below is the Jakarta Post article, "Of different Malays: The problem of boundaries".

It represents a viewpoint from an Indonesian perspective.

Of Different Malays: The Problem of Boundaries

by

Merlyna Lim

Merlyna Lim is an Indonesian professor based in Arizona State University, Tempe, USA. She is Assistant Professor of the Consortium of Science, Policy and Outcomes and the School of Justice and Social Inquiry at Arizona State University. Her teaching and research interests revolve around mutual shaping of technology and society and political culture of science, technology, and cities, in relations to issues of globalization, democratization and (in)equity.

She holds the following awards: Annenberg Networked Publics Research Fellowship (2005-2006), Henry Luce Southeast Asia fellowship (2004), Oxford Summer Doctoral Fellowship (2003), NWO Wotro Fellowship (2003-2005), and ASIST International Paper Contest Winner (2002) and has given more than 50 invited lectures and presentations in various places in the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, and Asia. Read here her profile.)


THE recent furor caused by the Discovery Channel's mistaken insertion of the Balinese Pendet dance into a TV spot for Malaysia has reopened an old wound of Indonesians, who believe Malaysian has repeatedly stolen Indonesian cultural heritage, including the song "Rasa Sayange", the angklung, and the Reog Ponorogo dance, among others.

For most Indonesians, that the Malaysian government can claim these things is bewildering.

Regular Indonesians would undoubtedly associate these three intangible cultural items with three different origins:

• "Rasa Sayange" is Ambonese/Maluku,
  
  
• the angklung is Sundanese, and
  
  
• the Reog Ponorogo is Javanese.

Most Malaysians, including the government of Malaysia, however, fail to see these as being of different cultural lineage. They lump them as belonging to Malay (Melayu) culture.

MALAY culture is considered by Indonesians in reference to the dances of Lilin, Randai and Serampang Dua Belas, and has NO direct connection to the Javanese gamelan, the Reog or the angklung.

It is directly associated with the traditions and customs of the ethnic group within the boundary of the Malay peninsula.

Malaysians seem to see a DIFFERENT boundary for Malay culture.

Why is this?

The Indonesian Perspective

Knowledge and narratives of local culture in Indonesia are developed in association with ethnic-based regional boundaries. They are endorsed by the state and they are part of nation building.

From elementary school, Indonesian kids learn about national heritage by memorizing the names of dances, folk songs and visual representations of traditional costumes.

The practice of documenting and selecting material artifacts of local cultures is part of the larger political process of inclusion that stresses nationalism and the national unity of Indonesia. Selective preservation of regional and/or local art forms, in constructing the national culture, is therefore part of the politics of exclusion.

Recognizing this pitfall, however, the ways in which local culture is framed in Indonesia are much LESS crude than in Malaysia.

It is still assigned and identified with a certain cultural context/geographical (of origin). While being partial and reductionist, multifarious contexts and diverse locales still have some space in the narrative of Indonesian national culture.

The Malaysian Perspective

Malaysia adopts a different route in approaching its national and local cultures.

The modern nation-state of Malaysia frames national culture by clustering cultural artifacts into the Malay, Chinese, Indian and indigenous tribe (orang asli) cultures. The term Malay here differs from that of Indonesia, and refers to and is influenced by several concepts.

First, as enacted in the term "Malay is Muslim, Muslim is Malay", it is a form of ethno-religion. It is entwined with the concept of ethnic nationalism that has become today's Malaysia's dominant state-religion relations in which the state is fused to a particular ethnic group and religion functions as a signifier of ethnic identity.

Any Javanese, Acehnese or other Indonesian who migrated to Malaysia will be classified as Malay and are expected to be Muslim. Chinese-Indonesians, though, can box themselves as Chinese, thus do not have to be Muslim.

Second, it is used in association with the Malay race (bangsa Melayu) instead of the Malay ethnicity (suku Melayu).

This concept originated in Blumenbach's racial classification system, which divides the world's races into the Caucasian/white race, the Mongolian/yellow race, the Malayan/brown race, the American/red race and the Negroid/black race. His skull-based concept has been rejected by many anthropologists who recognize the enormous complexity of classifying races.

Blumenbach's racial classification system of Malay adopted in Malaysia

He considered the inhabitants of Southeast Asia, including the Marianas, the Philippines, the Malukus, Sundas and Pacific Islands as Malayan. Blumenbach wrote, "Malay variety. Tawny-colored; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head moderately narrowed; forehead slightly swelling; nose full..."

The concept of the Malay race is also a historical heritage of colonialism. European planters and British officials in Malaysia were keen to obtain laborers from the Dutch East Indies because they were regarded as being better suited to the climate and would assimilate more easily with the local Malays.

Indonesian migrants were viewed as originating from the same racial stock as the Malays, regardless of ethnicity.

In early colonial Malaysia, the Straits Settlements censuses of 1871 and 1881 both listed "Malay, Achinese, Andamanese, Boyanese, Bugis and Javanese" separately.

In the 1891 census, however, there were major structural changes in the classification of ethnicities. The 48 different ethnicities were sorted under the major (hierarchical) classifications of "European and American, Eurasian, Chinese, Malays and other Natives of the Archipelago, Tamils and other Natives of India, and Other Races".

The creation of the category "Malay and other Natives of the Archipelago" and the inclusions of the various ethnicities in it contributed toward formalizing the boundaries of Malay-ness.

The modern nation-state Malaysia cultivates this heavily politicized classification by clustering Malaysians into Malays, Chinese, Indians and indigenous tribes.

Tracing the origin of the term Malay as used in Malaysian context, we thus can understand that the Malaysian version of Malay is more a product of political reconstruction (of colonialism and a modern ethnic nationalism) and is rooted in the politics of race and identity rather than the geographical boundary of origin.

Domestic Politics and Malay Culture

As people move around globally, cultures flow in all directions. Tracing the histories and origins of culture is thus always a complicated task. Lumping together various artifacts into one Malay culture whose boundary is heavily politicized is certainly not the most plausible method to complete the task.

It fails to recognize the complexity of the cultures of the archipelago, thus removing them from their multifarious contexts and locales and uprooting these cultures from the people who shape and are reshaped by them.

As for Indonesia, it is time to recognize and appreciate local cultures not by treating them as symbols to justify unity and diversity, but by supporting and caring for the people who work tirelessly in preserving and maintaining these cultures.
-Merlyna Lim

RELATED ARTICLE

Indonesia, We are NOT Your Whipping Boy

by

TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ
Vice Chairman,
DAP -Malaysia

Tunku Abdul Aziz founded the Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International , now the Malaysian Society for Transparency & Integrity of which he was the President until December 2004. In October 1997 he was elected to the international board of Transparency International and in March the following year, he became Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of Transparency International. He was re-elected Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors in October 1999 and relinquished that position in October 2002. Tunku Aziz has written and spoken widely on corruption and integrity issues both domestically and internationally. His book, Fighting Corruption: My Mission, was released in 2004.

He is a member of the World Bank High Level Advisory Group on Anti-Corruption in the East Asia and Pacific Region, and a member of the Advisory Board of Global Public Policy Networks, a project of "Visioning the UN", an initiative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the United Nations Foundation.

He also serves as a member of the Asian Pacific Advisory Panel on Good Urban Governance, and is a member of the Board of the International Institute of Public Ethics. He was a member of the UNDP Advisory Panel for the Human Development Report 2002. He is on the Global Advisory Council of Caux Roundtable, a US-based business organization promoting, among other things, principles of good governance. In February 2004 he was appointed a member of the Royal Commission inquiring into the police service.

He was appointed, in Feb. 2006, Special Adviser to the Secretary General of the United Nations, and in that capacity set up the UN Ethics Office. He returned from New York on completion of his work in January 2007.Tunku Aziz is a columnist for the New Sunday Times', and sits on the Global Advisory Board of the Caux Round table and is President of the Caux Round table Malaysia. Tunku joined the DAP in August 2008 and is currently the DAP National Vice Chairman.

Read here for more

The Javanese have done it again. They have burned our national flag.

Many years ago, I was interviewed in London by BBC Radio 2 as part of a series on the great languages of the world.

I was asked about some significant differences between Bahasa Indonesia and our own Bahasa Melayu. I feigned ignorance about the existence of a language called Bahasa Indonesia. I said what Indonesia claimed as its language is really Bahasa Melayu.

They had no choice but to use Bahasa Melayu, the lingua franca of the Malay world to communicate among themselves because they never had a common language to begin with.

Malay is undoubtedly the basis of their language. So, if we do what they in Indonesia do so well, we should be burning their flag every day because they have purloined our national language.

An excessive display of nationalistic zeal is generally considered "ugly" in civilised societies. The Indonesians by their actions have reduced themselves into sad figures of ridicule and fun. Their claim, and not for the first time, that we have infringed their "cultural copyrights" is totally absurd. They now have got it into their heads that we should stop singing our national anthem because the tune was Indonesian. What else next? Stop eating satay and wearing kain batik because these are Indonesian?

I remember the time when Indonesia took it upon themselves to rename the Indian Ocean as the Indonesian Ocean, and had the new name put on their official map. The Indians demurred, and Sukarno the regional bully boy realised that it was not such a clever thing to do after all.

Last year we had Wahyu Susilo of Migrant Care, an influential labour organisation telling us "We also want Malaysia to legalise illegal workers and not simply deport them home." Then, again last year we were reminded by Indonesian lawmakers that Malaysia-Indonesia relations were "at their worst since Sukarno's days of Konfrontasi in the sixties."

The reference to Konfrontasi is mischievous in the circumstances. It was a attempt to stampede us into submitting to their will. Indonesians should want to forget that disastrously miscalculated adventure which ended with a bloody nose for their country.

On the positive side, it brought to an end the reign of the megalomaniac Sukarno only to be replaced by the rapacious Suharto. Perhaps we had a match in our own country, and we should not gloat over it too much.

As a matter of interest, even the normally calm and staid Najib when Deputy Prime Minister was moved to refer to Malaysia as the "Whipping Boy" of the Indonesian media whenever they felt they had a grievance, real or imagined, against us.

I mention all this as a way of reminding ourselves that history provides important lessons for us all. Patterns of political behaviour are often deeply entrenched in the consciousness of a nation, and in the case of our big and unwieldy neighbour, this phenomenon is more marked than is good for them. We want to continue to maintain good neighbour relations with Indonesia, but Indonesia must remember that we are not a client state, and there is a limit to how far we are prepared to go to be nice. We have to think about protecting our national security interests and not putting them at risk. After all, our responsibility is to our own people, first and last.

I recall vividly the burning of our flag in 2002 in Jakarta, that very violent capital of Indonesia. Dr. Mahathir, the then Prime Minister responded in a statesman-like manner to the crude officially orchestrated provocation in which the petulant Speaker of the People's Consultative Council, Amein Rais played a big role.

So, in the most recent incident, we were yet again treated to a pattern of behaviour that seems to have been well integrated into the great Indonesian cultural psyche, and that is part of their culture they can keep without any fear of copyright infringement by Malaysia.

It is obviously difficult for us to engage such a volatile country without causing offence and endless misunderstandings, but we must show patience and wisdom and do all we can to keep the relations on an even keel.

Indonesia is still a country in transition and has yet to find its own realistic level in international relations. It seems to lack the confidence of a potentially rich and credible nation, and therefore occupies its time in the luxury of blaming others when things do not go their way.

I suppose they will now want to take back all their nearly two million nationals, both legal and mostly illegal, working hard, and robbing hard, to keep body and soul together.

Grow up Indonesia! We are not your whipping boy.